Florida Construction Law

Lennar Homes, LLC, et. al, v. Knauf GIPS KG, Case No. 09-07901 CA 42 (Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County), order filed on August 31, 2012. Circuit Judge Farina entered an Order denying drywall manufacturer’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and to Dismiss Complaint based on damages for use of “Chinese drywall,” and found sufficient facts of an agency relationship between manufacturer and distributor to support the application of Florida’s “long-arm” statute, without violating “due process.”  (from RPPTL Subcommittee) Trenton H. Cotney Florida Bar Certified Construction Lawyer Trent Cotney, P.A. 1211 N Franklin St Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 579-3278 www.trentcotney.com

Great American JWR Construction Services and Gulf Reflections Condominium Association , Case No. 10-61423-CV-Huck/Branstra, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Order entered on April 9, 2011. Summary Judgment granted in favor of contractor and owner and against surety on the sole issue of the duty to defend an underlying suit in Lee County Circuit Court (Case No. 10-CA-000371) for damages caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Applying New York law as required by the policy, the exclusion for “Faulty work/own work” was rejected because the drywall installation itself was not alleged to be defective, and the exclusion for “Products Liability” was also rejected because the construction was a “service” and not a “product,” and because the contractor did not “handle” the drywall. Surety was also ordered to reimburse for defense costs incurred to date, but further proceedings in this case was stayed pending outcome of the underlying suit. (from RPPTL Subcommittee)...

In Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. American Building Materials, Inc. and KB Home, et.al. , 2011 WL 1878236, Case No. 8:10-cv-313-T-24-AEP, issued May 17, 2011, a home builder (KB Homes) was sued by homeowners for damages resulting from the use of Chinese drywall. KB Homes sued its drywall supplier, American Building Materials, Inc. (ABM), to whom Auto-Owners had issued a Commercial Liability Insurance policy. KB Homes also made a claim against this policy, and Auto-Owners brought suit against both KB Homes and ABM seeking a declaration that it had neither a duty to defend nor indemnity in the underlying lawsuit. The Court held that under the “property damages” coverages, Auto-Owners was obligated both to defend and to pay indemnity for such damages, since these were not excluded under the “pollution,” “sistership,” or “your products” provisions of the policy. While this opinion makes reference to the multi-district litigation in Louisiana involving Chinese drywall products, its rulin...